alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31**I, Jerome B. Van Orman, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Superior Wholesale Inventory Financing Trust XI; 2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under the pooling andservicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance reviewrequired under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer hasfulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and 5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance withthe minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent publicaccountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single AttestationProgram for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing,or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.Date:March 31, 2006*/s/ Jerome B. Van Orman, Jr.*Jerome B. Van Orman, Jr.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1348NE

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District of

v. * Nebraska.

*

Edward E. Brown, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: September 11, 1997

Filed: September 18, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The Government appeals the district court's order denying the Government's

pretrial motion to introduce evidence of other crimes. We review the district court's

ruling for abuse of discretion. Having carefully considered the record and the parties'

briefs and arguments, we conclude the ruling of the district court was correct. Because

the appeal involves the straightforward application of settled principles of law, an

extended discussion of the issue on appeal will serve no useful purpose. We thus

affirm and remand for further proceedings. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2075

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota

Eliseo Espinoza Rios, also known as *

Fernando, * [Unpublished]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 22, 2004

Filed: November 8, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eliseo Espinoza-Rios (Rios) appeals from the final judgment entered in the

United States District Court1

 for the District of Minnesota upon appellant’s plea of

guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 5,000

grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The

district court granted the government’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a downward departure based on substantial assistance, and
-2-

sentenced Rios below the 120-month statutory minimum to 65 months imprisonment,

plus 5 years supervised release. For reversal, in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues the district court erred in failing to

grant a more substantial downward departure. Rios’s displeasure with the extent of

the district court’s downward departure, however, is not reviewable. See United

States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993). 

We have also reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the request for substitute counsel.

______________________________
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - (-)science_science(6)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(75)
              - products_software(1)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(3)

## By Location

              - alabama(8)
              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(8)
              - arkansas(9)
              - california(38)
              - colorado(29)
              - connecticut(7)
              - delaware(4)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(16)
              - georgia(16)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - idaho(4)
              - illinois(10)
              - indiana(18)
              - iowa(11)
              - kansas(5)
              - louisiana(13)
              - maine(7)
              - maryland(10)
              - massachusetts(10)
              - michigan(7)
              - minnesota(7)
              - mississippi(9)
              - missouri(8)
              - montana(19)
              - nebraska(5)
              - nevada(8)
              - new hampshire(4)
              - new jersey(19)
              - new mexico(17)
              - new york(38)
              - north carolina(16)
              - north dakota(11)
              - ohio(10)
              - oklahoma(12)
              - (-)oregon(6)
              - pennsylvania(9)
              - puerto rico(14)
              - rhode island(5)
              - south carolina(19)
              - south dakota(21)
              - tennessee(8)
              - texas(3)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(5)
              - vermont(5)
              - virginia(18)
              - washington(30)
              - west virginia(4)
              - wisconsin(18)
              - wyoming(9)

## By Year

Event        February 25, 2019        December 2014 Pacific Coast Floods

Topic        December 6, 2023        Excess Sediment Accumulation Causes Flooding in the Cascades

Activity        November 2, 2023        Excess Sedimentation Affects River Channels

Research        October 15, 2020        USGS-developed lahar detection systems provide warning of lahars

Project        May 11, 2017        Henry Hagg Lake Water-Quality Model

Project        March 30, 2021        Pacific Northwest Geologic Mapping: Northern Pacific Border, Cascades and Columbia
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARK HERNANDEZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00277

- CR

Appeal from the

41 st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D03363)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. Thi s decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

y0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

143147

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143147 COA: 302847 Wayne CC: 10-010284 FC RODERICK VINCENT CALHOUN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 8, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
----

----

|   | (1) | The Registrant’s Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Michael V. Shustek                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael V. Shustek                                       |
| Chief Executive Officer and Director*                    |
| of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., sole Manager of the Registrant |

| /s/Rocio Revollo                                         |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Rocio Revollo                                            |
| Chief Financial Officer**                                |
| of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., sole Manager of the Registrant |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

URBANO JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 72898

Agency No. A088

- 130

- 567

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 18, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Urbano Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico

, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 72898

reconsider and the denial of a motion to reopen

. Moha mmed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d

785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jimenez ’ s motion to

reconsider and reopen as untimely and num ber barred

, where it was filed more

than 10 years after the order of removal became final and was beyond the

numerical limitations. See 8 U.S.C

. § 1229a(c)(6)(A), (7)(A); 8 C.F.R

. §

1003.2(b)(2)

, (c)(2). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying

Jimenez’ s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions , where he did not

establish prima facie eligibility for relief

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) ; Toufighi v.

Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) ( petitioner must demonstrate prima

facie eligibility for the relief sought ). We reject as unsupported by the record

Jimenez’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis of his claim.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination not to reopen

proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia

- Hernandez v . Holder , 633 F.3d 818, 823

- 824

(9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his

court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for

the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or

constitutional error.”)

.3 20

- 72898

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-80,444-02

IN RE WAYNE EDWARD ALLEN, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 14276A-B IN THE 29th DISTRICT COURT

FROM PALO PINTO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Palo

Pinto County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such

habeas corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Palo Pinto County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: November 25, 2015 

Do not publish
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(3)
              - science_science(19)
              - products_data(8)
              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(42)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(8)
              - multimedia_image-141771(6)
              - multimedia_image-141775(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(3)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(5)
              - alaska(9)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(36)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(60)
              - colorado(4)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(2)
              - connecticut(4)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(7)
              - florida(15)
              - georgia(3)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(14)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(11)
              - maine(7)
              - maryland(15)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(9)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(16)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - (-)new jersey(2)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(5)
              - ohio(2)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(5)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(7)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(10)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(17)
              - u.s. virgin islands(3)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(14)
              - west virginia(3)
              - wisconsin(10)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story

Featured Films and Shorts        September 30, 2017        USGS Hurricane Preparedness
Exhibit 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  PracticeXpert,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Jonathan Doctor,  President of the Company, and Michael Manahan, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company,  respectively certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Jonathan Doctor                                  /s/ Michael Manahan
-------------------------                            ---------------------------
Jonathan Doctor,                                     Michael Manahan,
Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2003                                      August 19, 2003
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC

EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of DIRECTV Financing Co., Inc. (the "Corporation") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chase Carey, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

|/s/CHASE CAREYChase Carey
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

February 28,
2007

---



QuickLinks
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(3)
              - science_science(19)
              - products_data(8)
              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(42)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(8)
              - multimedia_image-141771(6)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141775(2)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(3)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - american samoa(1)
              - california(4)
              - colorado(2)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(8)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - montana(2)
              - (-)new jersey(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - puerto rico(5)
              - south carolina(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

Charts or Graphs        September 20, 2023        CPFIM output Map

Charts or Graphs        September 20, 2023        CPFIM comparison map
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(9)
              - products_data(4)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(67)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - (-)news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - connecticut(1)
              - florida(1)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - (-)pennsylvania(2)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - vermont(1)

## By Year

newsletter        July 18, 2022      Pennsylvania Waters - Summer 2022 - Issue 8

newsletter        September 9, 2020      Pennsylvania Waters - Fall 2020 - Issue 2
Exhibit  23.e





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated May 30, 2012, relating to the financial statements of Suspensys Sistemas Automotivos Ltda. as of December 31, 2011 and for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion), appearing in Item 15 of Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Meritor, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2012 in the following Registration Statements:





FormRegistration No.PurposeS-3333-179405Registration of common stock, preferred  stock, warrants and guarantees of debt securitiesS-8333-171713Amended 2010 Long-Term Incentive PlanS-8333-1643332010 Long-Term Incentive PlanS-3333-163233Registration of common stock, preferred stock, warrants and guarantees of debt securitiesS-8333-1411862007 Long-Term Incentive PlanS-3333-143615Registration of convertible notes, guarantees and common stockS-3333-134409Registration of convertible notes,                                              guarantees and common stockS-8333-107913Meritor, Inc. Savings PlanS-8333-123103Meritor, Inc. Hourly Employees Savings PlanS-3333-58760Registration of debt securitiesS-8333-496101997 Long-Term Incentives PlanS-3333-43118Meritor, Inc. 1988 Stock Benefit PlanS-3333-43116Meritor, Inc. 1998 Stock Benefit PlanS-3333-43112Meritor, Inc. Employee Stock Benefit PlanS-8333-42012Employee Stock Benefit Plan, 1988 Stock Benefit Plan and 1998 Employee Stock Benefit Plan





/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu


Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes


Porto Alegre, Brazil


May 3, 2013